Quoth Mark:

> It depends on how you define "human life", especially in what
> context. One has to assume that the main context here is the
> political definition.

I disagree. The definition of "human life" -- or, more particularly,
what constitutes a "human being" -- is a necessary basis/prerequisite
for any political debate on the disposition of said "human life" or
"human being." If the political definition doesn't flow from the
actual definition, then anything goes -- "human life excludes [insert
ethnic group here] included."

>  Of course science has to be included, but
> not used in a vacuum. If you isolate the scientific definition,
> you can say that it is murder to eliminate all sorts of other
> human parts which have potential for "human life".

Nice try. Now, show me where I referred to "human life" or "potential"
at all. I have made a very specific, irrefutable, provable, observable
claim as to what is and what is not a "human being," which is a
different thing entirely.

I have not made a pro-life argument yet, and don't intend to. All I've
done is point out that a "human being" is, in fact, a "human being,"
and that in any further debate on abortion participants must
acknowledge that fact or forfeit the argument for lack of credibility.
The specific relevant issue with respect to abortion is not what is
and is not a "human being," because that is already known. The
relevant issue is what and what is not a "person."

> TLP's
> definition of "personhood" is very good, which is actually a much
> better term for the abortion argument than "human life".

That's what I've been saying the whole damn time (although I've not
expressed an opinion on TLP's definition).

> PS: Spare us any further repetition of your clever redundancy
> claiming no one cares about Paul's opinions. Your claim is false.

That's friggin' scary.

Tom Knapp





ForumWebSiteAt  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian



YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




Reply via email to